Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Petition against "fixing" matches (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19301)

Alexander McGee 17-03-2003 10:07

Petition against "fixing" matches
 
Hello chiefdelphi world. As you all may know, there were a lot of what were called "gentleman's agreements" going on at several regionals. My team as well as cryptionite started a petition to stop these various acts of agreements. We started a petition, and had teams hang up copies in their pits, showing their support for the anti-fixing. I urge all teams to sign this petition.

First off, this thread is NOT for arguing, there are plenty of other threds out there for that.

This thread is simply a place to state that your team disagrees with the practice of working with your opponent to better eachothers scores.

So, talk it out with your team, and sign the petition if you agree with it. If you don't agree with this, then dont post anything.

Please note that this is not a "blacklist" at all. If there are more teams out there who deny than accept, that these "agreements" will stop.

Teams who agree with my team's oppinons, will you please follow my example below.

Alexander McGee 17-03-2003 10:11

Team 68
 
On behalf of team 68, Truck Town Thunder,

I would like to say that my team disagrees with the practice of fixing matches, and will not do it at any robotics event. I believe that this is in violation of the spirit of F.I.R.S.T., and strongly oppose it. If any team approaches me and wishes to make an agreement, my team will deny and play the game with our own skill.

Mark Pettit 17-03-2003 11:07

On behalf of Team #991, The Dukes, I acknowledge that we have not and we will not engage in points fixing and/or collusion, and we have played and will play all of our matches graciously and professionally using only our own abilities and those of our robot, Uncomfortable Hunk Of Metal (UHOM).
Thank you!

miketwalker 17-03-2003 11:22

FIRST is all about gracious professionalism. The world is a competition, but can come together. For example, Lockheed Martin and Boeing fought for bids with rockets, however in the end one lost, one won. This happens in our game. But at the same time these two companies can work together on one goal and create something better than they could individually. The two heads are better than one theory. So while you oppose the team, you do want to stay ahead and win, but you don't want to crush others work, you want to help. After the match you want to go to their pits and say "How can I help you guys make your robot better?" Battlebots even does this, but you seem like you feel we should make this into what it's not. FIRST is known for not being a sport in the fashion of others. This isn't football, we don't crush the other team's robot and cheer. We win, but we all try to expand our minds. I oppose this petition, because in the method it works it is transforming this game into a full fledged game where you can either win or lose, but not all win.

DougHogg 17-03-2003 11:28

Team 980 was the first to sign your petition at the Arizona Regional and we are proud to sign it now.

We feel that the most basic agreement on which the competition is based is the kickoff where the game was described as a 2-on-2 competition, and that forming agreements with your opponents is a basic violation of that concept.

We further feel that making agreements with your opponents is harmful to the competition and to FIRST, because if it was continued, teams would soon agree to let all 4 robots get up on the ramp and then start sharing the bins. This would lead to a theatrical performance instead of a competition. Audiences would find this to be boring and fake. In our society, this is not acceptable in any sport or competition that we have ever heard of.

Also teams which have worked very hard to make robots that can stack are unfairly deprived of the fruits of their efforts, because teams making agreements with their opponents have huge stacks without making such a mechanism.

Additionally we observed that this practice caused bad feeling and upset at the regional we attended, and thus should be discarded as harmful to FIRST as a whole.

We have not, and will not, accept any offers by our opponents, and will not alliance with teams in the elimination rounds that do, even if it means that we will not be in the elimination rounds at a competition.

WakeZero 17-03-2003 11:36

On behalf of team 1011,

We have not and will not fix any matches. Enough said ;)

punarhero 17-03-2003 11:38

Here is a problem and a solution
 
Not every team is checking the forum here, and we will not be made aware of their decision on this issue. Even though I totally disagree that agreeing with your opponents is bad, our team will not do it since the majority of FIRST teams think it is invalid.

We also take the responsibility of going around in LA regional and getting a petition signed by those who wouldn't make deals with opponents, and have it printed. Here is the petition I think should be signed (Please correct anything that seems to be wrong):

[b]We, as a FIRST robotics team, in the true spirit of FIRST and that of gracious professionalism, agree not to engage in any kinds of "deals" with our opponents in any qualifying matches to keep the integrity of the game designed by FIRST.[/B

D.J. Fluck 17-03-2003 11:42

I am totally against fixing matches, but a petition won't do anything about it. Just don't do it yourself. Thats the only way people will get the point that you won't fix matches

Soukup 17-03-2003 11:50

Team 74 will not and shall not fix any matches.....DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT APPROACHING US!!!!:mad:

DougHogg 17-03-2003 12:23

Quote:

Originally posted by D.J. Fluck
I am totally against fixing matches, but a petition won't do anything about it. Just don't do it yourself. Thats the only way people will get the point that you won't fix matches
Actually the petition at the Arizona Regional put a halt to the practice.

T967 17-03-2003 12:26

compitition
 
Why would you waste Oxygen on something like fixing matches. That is not any fun and your bound to piss people off. Have fun don't worry so much about winning. Plus in the finals all that fixing won't help you, you'll just get your butt kicked.

Koci 17-03-2003 13:28

Of course team 624 (Cryptonite) signs this petition. I would have been the first to sign it, only I was asleep.

We, as a team, voted before alliance selections at the AZ regional, and decided that if one of the two teams in the top 8 who had done this collusion picked us as their alliance partner, we would flat out reject, and forfeit our team from the regionals. We made sure everyone fully understood the implications of this action, and I believe it was unanimous to go through with it if the situation arose.

Luckily, it never did.

Oh, and WakeZero, since you stated team 1011 "have not and will not fix matches," you are one of the two teams during the regional whose drivers approached us to do this collusion, which we flatly rejected.

Alexander McGee 17-03-2003 13:41

Must i repeate myself?
 
I will say it again.

Quote:

Originally posted by magnasmific
First off, this thread is NOT for arguing, there are plenty of other threds out there for that.
Dont post here unless you agree with the petition. Its a waste of everyone's time.

Alexander McGee 17-03-2003 13:50

Re: Here is a problem and a solution
 
Quote:

Originally posted by punarhero
Not every team is checking the forum here, and we will not be made aware of their decision on this issue. Even though I totally disagree that agreeing with your opponents is bad, our team will not do it since the majority of FIRST teams think it is invalid.[/size][/B

My team will be passing out a written petition at all events that we attend. It worked once we did it in Arizona. I urge teams attending other regional events to do likewise.

PLEASE STICK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND!!!

miketwalker 17-03-2003 14:50

Earlier when I posted I had the wrong impression. I thought the petition was against the 2 times the losers score plus your own. I didn't know about matches being fixed at regionals. I know our team will not do that at competition, I promise you that much. I just mistook this petition as against getting rid of the gracious professionalism, sorry about that.

Adam Y. 17-03-2003 14:56

Quote:

Earlier when I posted I had the wrong impression. I thought the petition was against the 2 times the losers score plus your own. I didn't know about matches being fixed at regionals. I know our team will not do that at competition, I promise you that much. I just mistook this petition as against getting rid of the gracious professionalism, sorry about that
Actually I am all for getting rid of that rule because that is what is causing all of this mess.

Aaron Lussier 17-03-2003 15:03

On Behalf of Team 151 (The Wild Cards) We will not, Propose or accecpt and of these such " gentlemens agreements" This is not in the spirt of the competion, and we will not do it.

Anarkissed 17-03-2003 15:07

I haven't had a chance to talk to my fellow teammates about this subject yet but I do know that it has come up in the past, and it is strongly condemned by us. Teams, talk to all your members especially the drivers, make sure no one confronts other teams about this. Students that confront others to fix a match have a tendancy to get a very bad reputation for their team. Remember students, your not just a builder, driver, human player, co-pilot, strategist, scout, or any other position, your an ambassador for your team, any wrongs you commit, your team commits.

futtrich 17-03-2003 15:19

" Oh, and WakeZero, since you stated team 1011 "have not and will not fix matches," you are one of the two teams during the regional whose drivers approached us to do this collusion, which we flatly rejected."

If our driver approached you about this, I apologize. He's young and those around him should have shown better judgement. I hadn't heard anything about these "agreements" until after we got home on Sunday. But as a parent on Team 1011, I will say that this practice does not reflect what we want our team to stand for nor is this behavior something I want my kids to learn from FIRST or anywhere else for that matter. I assure you it will be brought up at our next team meeting.

Gadget470 17-03-2003 15:38

I will sign the petetion at Great Lakes and, as I've expressed in the arguement threads, I am strongly against the fixing of matches.

The only way to be is <ripoff>2 legit 2 quit</ripoff>

Wayne C. 17-03-2003 16:23

It seems that whenever there is a problem somebody breaks out a petition.

The fact is that if some team attempts to throw a match the best way to discourage it is to LOUDLY and openly state in no uncertain terms that you will not tolerate it and that they have ruined any chances of being your chosen alliance partner in the future.

(BTW- that means forever for me)

Team 25 won't throw matches- don't even ask! Neither will most of our friends. Don't ask them either!

WC

Amanda Morrison 17-03-2003 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Koci
Oh, and WakeZero, since you stated team 1011 "have not and will not fix matches," you are one of the two teams during the regional whose drivers approached us to do this collusion, which we flatly rejected.
In that case, thank you WakeZero for showing your true FIRST spirit and agreeing to put an end to these collusions between teams! That took guts, and sometimes admitting you are wrong is the hardest of all to do.

AlbertW 17-03-2003 17:19

Although my team thinks differently, I, personally, will sign this petition against collusiuons.

Kerry157 17-03-2003 18:13

On behalf of team 157 (aztechs), we will not fix any matches. Not only is it plain stupid, but never doubt your robot. On Saturday, at the UTC Hartford, we went from 27th place in the morning, to winning the Regional. Always believe in your team.. don't go around cheating.

tenfour 17-03-2003 18:25

---696 agrees---
 
On behalf of Team #696, The Circuit Breakers, I acknowledge that we have not and we will not engage in points fixing and/or collusion, and we have played and will play all of our matches graciously and professionally using only our own abilities and those of our robot, Heather. This decision is based on the general consent of our robotics team by the authority of our Team Council, where the vote passed 4-0, with one member absent.

Thank you!

-696

Jeremiah Johnson 17-03-2003 18:37

On behalf of team number 648, QC Elite, I have signed your petition. This against FIRST's intentions and is not an act of gracious professionalism. I say let the robots duel and who ever wins, wins.

WakeZero 17-03-2003 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by amandabean
In that case, thank you WakeZero for showing your true FIRST spirit and agreeing to put an end to these collusions between teams! That took guts, and sometimes admitting you are wrong is the hardest of all to do.
It was a misunderstanding in the first place. When our drivers got back from talking to the other team, our coach Eric made sure they understood why 'fixing' matches wasn't in the spirit of FIRST. They now understand, we just didn't think to go over this dilemma with them before hand :rolleyes:

A. Snodgrass 17-03-2003 18:47

Bring it up at the team forum if you dislike it so much

Ben Mitchell 17-03-2003 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by A. Snodgrass
Bring it up at the team forum if you dislike it so much
Thank you.

These petitions really don't solve anything, and are an unproductive waste of time.

If you want something done about it, bring it up at the team forum, or to FIRST directly - complaining here won't help you.

If people are going to make agreements, this thread, this forum, your team, my team, Dean Kamen, or George Bush won't make a single difference. They will do it anyway.

I suggest everyone calm down, and make yor own decisions on how you want to play the game. I know my team will play the game to the fullest strategic ability we can, but I am not going to spew rhetoric to other teams in an attempt to enforce MY code of conduct onto other people.

This thread, and others like it, don't serve any purpose. The power to draw a line between what is wrong and what is right is vested soley in the individual. Anyone that thinks it is their duty to be a moral paladin, holding aloft the banners of Gracious Professionalism, needs to get a reality check. Complaining and agreeing with eachother here makes little difference out there.

(Oh, and a little FYI: if you don't like the way those teams that rig matches operate, don't select them as alliance partners, that will get your message across in a tangible manner)


--Ben

DougHogg 17-03-2003 19:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Mitchell
Thank you.

These petitions really don't solve anything, and are an unproductive waste of time.

If you want something done about it, bring it up at the team forum, or to FIRST directly - complaining here won't help you.

Hi Ben,

Actually that is exactly what I and others did do at the Arizona Regional. One of our engineers and I spoke to Jason Morella and the head referee for 1/2 an hour. They told us that FIRST pays attention to this forum and to bring up the matter here.

What I got is that it is hard for FIRST to make changes based on a few teams, but if 500 teams want something handled it, it will be noticed. So that is what we are doing here.

Personally I do not want a repeat of pre-match agreements between teams at the S. Calif. Regional or at the Championship. Also quite honestly our team is in debt now. We want to go to the championships but wouldn't go through the massive effort to get the money if this isn't resolved. We didn't go to Arizona for a 4 team cooperative competition, and we went through quite a lot to try to sort it out.

The truth is, this issue just needs to be a matter of what is expected by FIRST without a huge rule change or anything of that nature. However that has not occurred so I am doing what FIRST told us to do--bringing it to this forum.

A. Snodgrass 17-03-2003 19:31

The team forum that I refered to is the one done at the end of each season by first to find out what teams liked and disliked about the years game. It is also meant to bring up problems. FIRST does watch cd...but they ALSO listen to the people who bring up problems at the team forums. Many, many changes are made when enough people mention something at the team forum. I agree that a petition would very likely not be as effective in this format however. Actually BRING a petition to the team forum to present to them.

Ben Mitchell 17-03-2003 19:34

I am going to look into information on that team forum, and see if I can attend it.

I think that complaints/suggestions/comments have a much stronger chance of being considered then, post season, than now, in the midst of competition.

Captain Soup 17-03-2003 19:54

Team 698 at the Arizona regional
 
I ask that you kindly read my whole post before potentially dismissing it. Thank you.

As the primary strategist (although the alternate driver might disagree <wink>) for team 698, I'd like to state that I disagree with this thread. I understand the purpose of it, however, I'm concerned with the possibility of many teams reading this that might not understand the situation for themselves and are agreeing only because of the buzz words used.

For those who weren't there, my team rose up from around 13th place to 1st in about 4 matches during seeding in the Arizona regional last Friday.
We did this by cooperating with the opposing team in an effort to get drastically more qualifying points. We agreed to have the four human players place a stack of 4 each, and for neither side to purposely knock down the other two stacks. If it worked, both sides would have multipliers of 4, but the winner would still be determined by who got the most boxes, which was EXACTLY how it was determined before. Prior to this, most of the time, both sides would have their bots knock down all the stacks. (Albeit, yes, there are robots that stack, however a total of about 4 in the nation have proven themselves to work, ours NOT included.)
My team and I thought this practice was quite boring, and were simply tired of only getting 40 qualifying points in a game that has a theoretical maximum of something in the 400 range.

Nowhere in the rules did it say anything against such a thing, and in fact, it encouraged it with the concept of getting your score plus double the opponants for qualifying points.
Also, think about how many times you've heard of FIRST being called a simulation of a real engineering project for a company. Limited deadlines, limited supplies, limited money, and limited help. Obviously, all companies compete, however many work together not to undercut each other unfairly. Isn't this simply what we've been doing? Instead of the opposing team losing with 20 points, they'd lose with 80, in turn not falling quite as far in the ranking. We figured that if we lost in the match, we'd at least lose in style, catapulting someone else higher up in the ranking.

It has nothing to do with "fixing scores", or cheating. We've been playing within the rules. As such, you can't simply modify the rules so that it better benefit yourself -- to do so would be against the idea of gracious professionalism.

Also, in spite of "fixing the scores", we were only about 150 net points higher than the second place team. Had all of their matches been 15 points higher, they would have tied with us. With this in mind, did what we do really change the outcome of the game? In fact, an engineer from team 980 suggested the idea that we would have been 5th seed even if we didn't. FOUR positions isn't necessarily that much of a difference for "cheating" or "fixing the scores", wouldn't you agree?

Which is why from my point of view, it seems that many people are blowing this entirely out of proportion.

I have no problem with people not agreeing to do this, but petitions, signs, and hateful words are COMPLETELY against the spirit of FIRST. FIRST is NOT about competition or even building a robot. It's about building connections with other people, with students to engineering, and generally having fun. Putting up signs only puts up barriers, which is why I chose to directly speak with several other angry teams at the event and make amends.

And as a final note, don't you think Mr. Kamen thought about this very thing before this competition year started?

Thanks everybody! <steps off his soapbox>

If you would like to debate/comment/flame/agree/whatever with or about this post, please feel free to email me at soup@tank.dyndns.org.

Sorry about the length, but I really wanted to make sure I got my point across.
--Jonathan Tate (primary driver, vice president of team 698, the Microbots)

Alexander McGee 17-03-2003 20:17

Re: Team 698 at the Arizona regional
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Soup
And as a final note, don't you think Mr. Kamen thought about this very thing before this competition year started?
Personally, i think Dean Kamen would be appalled by your previous post.

You claim that what you are doing is in the spirit of F.I.R.S.T., and that by creating this petition, My team is doing the opposite. A statement like that can ruin a team's reputation, so use your words sparingly.

To clear this all up, F.I.R.S.T., as well as thousands of people in the F.I.R.S.T. community, disagrees with you. They have stated here that your actions are not in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism. Yes, I am aware that there is no rule against what you are doing. However, there are a lot of people out there who think that it is wrong. And yet, you continue to defend your actions. I am fine with that, but it think that putting down my team as well as others is absolutely ridiculous. I am not asking for an apology, I am asking you to please express your opinions in private, or you can email me.

My team will continue to keep petitions going. As “useless” as people think they are. They have worked, and will work.

Redhead Jokes 17-03-2003 20:33

Re: Re: Team 698 at the Arizona regional
 
Quote:

Originally posted by magnasmific
Personally, i think Dean Kamen would be appalled by your previous post. You claim that what you are doing is in the spirit of F.I.R.S.T., and that by creating this petition, My team is doing the opposite. I am fine with that, but it think that putting down my team as well as others is absolutely ridiculous. I am not asking for an apology, I am asking you to please express your opinions in private, or you can email me.

*confused* I think his post was excellent. I'd be curious if you really do speak for Dean Kamen.

Quote:

I am fine with that, but it think that putting down my team as well as others is absolutely ridiculous.
The word "but" generally cancels anything said before it.

I'm also confused about you insisting his opinions be addressed in private, when your opinions are publicly addressed.

Jason speaks for himself

Alexander McGee 17-03-2003 21:00

I apologise, i dont speak for Dean, and never meant that i did. I took offense to that post, and i overreacted. You all know how i feel about the Gentalmens agreements, so i wont go there.

This is a competition. People will play it how they see fit no matter what i say. Im just trying to help.

DougHogg 17-03-2003 21:06

Re: Team 698 at the Arizona regional
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Soup

For those who weren't there, my team rose up from around 13th place to 1st in about 4 matches during seeding in the Arizona regional last Friday.
We did this by cooperating with the opposing team in an effort to get drastically more qualifying points.

Question: What would you do if everyone followed that strategy? (I can see down that road, and it doesn't look good to me at all.)

Quote:

It has nothing to do with "fixing scores", or cheating. We've been playing within the rules. As such, you can't simply modify the rules so that it better benefit yourself -- to do so would be against the idea of gracious professionalism.

Actually I am not trying to change the rules. I am trying to clarify them so that we are all operating on the same basis.

Quote:

In fact, an engineer from team 980 suggested the idea that we would have been 5th seed even if we didn't. FOUR positions isn't necessarily that much of a difference for "cheating" or "fixing the scores", wouldn't you agree?

Actually I think there is a big difference between 5th place and 1st place, as the 1st place team gets to pick their partner first which makes a big difference.

Quote:

I have no problem with people not agreeing to do this, but petitions, signs, and hateful words are COMPLETELY against the spirit of FIRST. FIRST is NOT about competition or even building a robot. It's about building connections with other people, with students to engineering, and generally having fun. Putting up signs only puts up barriers, which is why I chose to directly speak with several other angry teams at the event and make amends.

Actually, I went to talk to your team about this matter and then (as you know since you came over and listened) talked to Jason Morella of FIRST. He advised me to take the matter to the teams, which is what we did. Actually Team 624 and Team 68 acted independently. Then we joined forces to try to get agreement on not making pre-match agreements with opponents.

I appreciate that you tried to make amends, and as you pointed out the next day, you ceased making agreements with your opponents. Are you now suggesting that we all make agreements with our opponents?

The purpose of this thread is to try to get the competition back to a 2-on-2 competition, as it was designed to be. Do you want to change it to a 4 team coooperative event?

If so, start your own thread and vote or petition, and we will see who has the most votes. Then we can present the matter to FIRST. I sure don't want a repeat of this situation in S. Calif. Do you?

Quote:


If you would like to debate/comment/flame/agree/whatever with or about this post, please feel free to email me at soup@tank.dyndns.org.
--Jonathan Tate (primary driver, vice president of team 698, the Microbots)


Ryan Dognaux 17-03-2003 21:07

The "Gentlemen's Agreements" that have been taking place throughout the regionals are definately not in the spirit of FIRST, and do not benefit any team in any way, shape, or form. I was scouting at the Arizona Regional... and I won't mention any team numbers, or names, but I was approached by one opposing team to leave the human player stacks up during the match. I was shocked... This idea hadn't even crossed my mind yet... I just kind of ignored the remark and then shortly left that pit. Oh yeah, we won that match anyways.

These competitions do include strategy... no doubt I worked hard talking to team after team after team... and fixing matches never crossed my mind. 234 definately does not support the fixing of matches in any way , shape, or form.

And if your team does support fixing matches, and somehow makes it to the finals, you're just more likely to be eliminated in the finals - which doesn't do your alliance partners much good either, especially if they do not support the Gentlemen's Agreement strategy.

I know there won't be a rule against this, but one would think that teams would have enough common sense and a sense of morals to do the right thing. What ever happened to doing the right thing? Has our society infected the morals of a few in FIRST? I hope not... maybe I'm just looking into this all too much...

However, the Arizona Regional was still excellent and amazing , and I'd be glad to do it all over again :)

Adam Y. 17-03-2003 21:14

Quote:

And as a final note, don't you think Mr. Kamen thought about this very thing before this competition year started?
No because this is the second year this screwy scoring system has been in place. People have just found a loophole that makes this a bad scoring system. Last year people were actually doing what Kamen wanted us to do try and get the scores as close as possible but yet still win. This year people found a loophole.

Redhead Jokes 17-03-2003 21:29

Quote:

Originally posted by wysiswyg
No because this is the second year this screwy scoring system has been in place. People have just found a loophole that makes this a bad scoring system. Last year people were actually doing what Kamen wanted us to do try and get the scores as close as possible but yet still win. This year people found a loophole.
*confused* Did you read Jason's words?

Adam Y. 17-03-2003 21:38

Quote:

*confused* Did you read Jason's words?
I just did and unfournatly his logic is a little bit off.
Quote:

Obviously, all companies compete, however many work together not to undercut each other unfairly
Yeah ermmm companies used to do that until they said that it was illegal. Sorry to get a little off topic but I am learing about pools in social studies and let me tell you they are not legal or really fair. It undercuts competition and they drove off most of the smaller companies.

Redhead Jokes 17-03-2003 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by wysiswyg
Yeah ermmm companies used to do that until they said that it was illegal. Sorry to get a little off topic but I am learing about pools in social studies and let me tell you they are not legal or really fair. It undercuts competition and they drove off most of the smaller companies.
You'd have to discuss that with Jason to better understand where he's coming from.

I meant your statement that Mr Kamen did not think about this before the competition year started. I believe Jason's post addressed that.

Adam Y. 17-03-2003 22:06

Quote:

I meant your statement that Mr Kamen did not think about this before the competition year started. I believe Jason's post addressed that.
I know how it was supposed to work I was at last years competition. The first match involved our robot tipping over and it sitting there. The other teams dominated the match until the end. They realized that in order for them to get a decent qp total we would have to have a smaller amount of qp than they did but it had to be close. Unfortunately they lost(a fluke) but thats besides the fact. Last year the scores were close with our team's matches and we never had to have secret meetings. Sometimes it came down to one point. Thats how it was intended to work.
I read it. The rules never accounted for people to go and rig the match. The spirit of the rules was just to add another dimension so that teams would flat out win 100-0. That would be the opposite extreme of what is going on now. Unfortunately now we need a middle or else these competitions are going to get really boring fast.

Matt Leese 17-03-2003 22:51

I suppose my only real response to all these "fixing" discussions is really, who cares? Why make such a big deal out of it? Some people disagree with it and don't feel it should be part of the competition. Some people think it's just an interesting feature of the strategy of the game. So far, the actual act of "fixing" a match has hurt exactly no one.

However, the finger pointing and accussations surrounding the "fixing" have hurt people. There have been complaints about various teams and practices as long as I've been in FIRST. I've found many of them distasteful. However, the acrimony that was created by the discussions of these practices have probably caused much more damage than the practices themselves.

Personally, I think there are still a number of teams and individuals who don't "get it" (and I'm referring to groups on both sides of the argument but most definitely not specifics as I haven't been paying enough attention to know who they are). There have always been people who don't get it in FIRST. They have a tendency to either leave or figure out what it's all about. As long as the FIRST community stays as strong as it is, I don't worry about the so called problems with the "fixing."

Matt

Dave_222 17-03-2003 23:24

222 Has never and never will participate in a fixed match that is all i have to say.

Ryan Dognaux 18-03-2003 06:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt Leese
So far, the actual act of "fixing" a match has hurt exactly no one.
Matt

I guess that depends on your definition of hurt... I believe that the fixing of matches hurt the team I'm on for various reasons.

The point is, FIRST stated already that it's not a part of its Gracious Professionalism ideals, and should stop.

Mark Pettit 18-03-2003 09:15

So much for the petition.
 
Once again, please argue your opposition to this petition at http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=19272.
You were asked politely enough by the creator of this thread to only post here if you are pledging not to fix your matches.
Those of us who wish to compete fairly are already being denied that opportunity. Please do not deny us this one as well.

Dan Gold 18-03-2003 09:49

I would go for the soccer version of scoring. 3 points for a match win, one for a tie, nil for a loss. That would eliminate any of the pre-arranged lack of stack attack. At the Sacramento regional, there were about 20% of the matches where multiplying stacks were not attacked

Matt Leese 18-03-2003 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by AnimeRaul234
I guess that depends on your definition of hurt... I believe that the fixing of matches hurt the team I'm on for various reasons.

The point is, FIRST stated already that it's not a part of its Gracious Professionalism ideals, and should stop.

"Fixing" of matches has only hurt someone if you consider winning the object of the FIRST competition. I don't.

That's why I find this whole discussion silly. What's the FIRST competition about? So does it really matter if some teams act stupidly?

Matt

D.J. Fluck 18-03-2003 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt Leese
So does it really matter if some teams act stupidly?

For me no, but others, probably. I remember one time I went to a hockey game when I was 12 years old, and the only memory of that game I have is some guy getting escorted out of the arena for being a jerk by being overly loud and just plain obnoxious. You remember the bad experiences more than the good ones. FIRST doesnt want you to look back 30 years from now and one of the only memories you have is that some team wanted you to help them win by cheating or hurting yourself. Fixing is cheating and I will not be apart of an alliance that does it. Also petitioning is not going to do anything. As DougHogg said, the petition halted the practice matches in Arizona. If my practice match was cut because of that I would be fuming out the ears. Fixing matches is wrong, trying to petition this is wrong. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Redhead Jokes 18-03-2003 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt Leese
"Fixing" of matches has only hurt someone if you consider winning the object of the FIRST competition. I don't.

*chuckle* Like that too!

Alexander McGee 18-03-2003 15:01

Quote:

Originally posted by D.J. Fluck
As DougHogg said, the petition halted the practice matches in Arizona. If my practice match was cut because of that I would be fuming out the ears. Fixing matches is wrong, trying to petition this is wrong. 2 wrongs dont make a right.
You might want to re-read that.

The petition halted the "practice" of fixing matches, not practice matches. I know this for sure, because my team passed out the petition, on saturday.

The petition in Arizona WORKED! And, it didnt "cut" any practice matches.

We arn't doing a wrong here, we are trying to help.

And for the last time, please debate this in some other thread, i wish to keep the original puropse of this thread intact.

Thank you.

D.J. Fluck 18-03-2003 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by magnasmific
You might want to re-read that.

The petition halted the "practice" of fixing matches, not practice matches. I know this for sure, because my team passed out the petition, on saturday.

Quote:

Originally posted by DougHogg
Actually the petition at the Arizona Regional put a halt to the practice.

I see what you mean now, but there were a few details left out in DougHogg's statement. I wasn't the only one who read it that way..., try to be more specific next time.

Iain 18-03-2003 15:35

If I see anyone fixing matches at Peachtree, I will see to it that the judges are informed. That's all I have to say.

Redhead Jokes 18-03-2003 15:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Iain
If I see anyone fixing matches at Peachtree, I will see to it that the judges are informed. That's all I have to say.
And that will accomplish what?

Are you speaking about collusion or fixing?

Where has it come up that the judges are going to monitor "fixing" or "collusion"?

"What everyone is discussing on this thread falls under the definition of 'collusion' - not 'fixing' or 'cheating'."
"I thought it was a great opportunity for students and teams to solve an issue without FIRST - that they could solve it with discussion, diplomacy, and consensus instead of anger and resentment. "
"I did point out that FIRST could not police this even if we wanted to, so it really was a decision totally up to the teams."
Jason Morrella West Coast FIRST
link

FIRST said FIXING the game to achieve a tie is against Gracious Professionalism
link

Sean_330 18-03-2003 16:07

Guys, is this discussion really going anywhere at all? I think people need to agree to disagree. All we are doing here is fighting, and going back and forth arguing with each other.

Redhead Jokes 18-03-2003 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Sean_330
Guys, is this discussion really going anywhere at all? I think people need to agree to disagree. All we are doing here is fighting, and going back and forth arguing with each other.
I think some discussions are going somewhere. I don't think ALL that's happening is fighting, and going back and forth arguing.

I thought arguing was different than debate, and I, curious, looked up the definition.

To put forth reasons for or against; debate:
To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend:
To give evidence of; indicate:
To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons:

According to that definition, I don't believe arguing is a bad thing.


I think fighting however is useless...
def. A quarrel or conflict.
To engage in a quarrel; argue:

Idioms:
fight fire with fire
To combat one evil or one set of negative circumstances by reacting in kind.

And I believe debate is healthy...
To consider something; deliberate.
To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument.

Stu Bloom 18-03-2003 16:29

Cheryl, you are too funny ... :p

DougHogg 18-03-2003 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt Leese
"Fixing" of matches has only hurt someone if you consider winning the object of the FIRST competition. I don't.

That's why I find this whole discussion silly. What's the FIRST competition about? So does it really matter if some teams act stupidly?

Matt

I get what you are saying. I do not believe that teams should start calling each other names or refusing to talk to each other over this issue. However there were teams that were upset by what happened. One team discussed voting on whether to withdraw and go home. Another team was upset when they found out near the end what had been going on. They felt cheated, even though technically there was no rule against collaborating with your opponents. It would be great if no one ever got upset, but many people do when they feel an agreement has been broken. The agreement in this case is that teams thought that we are competing 2-on-2 as per the kickoff.

What we are trying to do with this petition is re-establish agreement between teams on how to compete: a) 2-on-2, b)as a Team of 4 or c)as a combination of a) and b). Personally I think that we should stick to 2-on-2 because that was the way the game was designed.

In Arizona, we discussed the issue of teams making agreements with their opponents with Jason Morrella of FIRST. He advised us to talk to other teams at the regional and to take up the matter here in this forum.

That is what we are doing: communicating to try to restore the commaradarie of FIRST, which seemed to be slipping away at times in Arizona. (There was a certain amount of upset and anger over what was happening.)

If we are all operating on the same rules, agreement will be restored and we can throw ourselves into the competition with enthusiasm. If we lose, we will know that we were beaten fairly because everyone was operating under the same rules.

While FIRST is not just about the competition, the competition is a vehicle for achieving our goals. So if the basic format (2-on-2 or Team of 4) is in doubt, that causes upsets and disagreements.

Quite honestly, if the teams voted to turn this year's game into a Team of 4 competition, I wouldn't bother going to the Championships, because the game wasn't designed that way. How hard is it to make human player stacks, split the bins and roll all 4 robots up the ramp?

I really do want us to have the 2-on-2 competition I thought we were going to have. And I don't want to have to go through the whole process of convincing each team at the S. Calif. Regional to agree not to make agreements with their opponents. And I don't even want to think about trying to do that at the Championships.

See "Rigging the Game" in the FIRST Forum.

See the post by Jason Morrella, FIRST

So if your team thinks that we should agree not to make pre-match agreements with our opponents, please sign this petition.

Ryan Dognaux 18-03-2003 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt Leese
"Fixing" of matches has only hurt someone if you consider winning the object of the FIRST competition. I don't.
Matt

I don't consider the object of a FIRST competition as winning it, but I would like to go and compete in a place where people play fair... don't you?
Personally I was hurt for various reasons... since 698 already stated that they disagree with this thread... and well I pretty much I assumed it at the competition for various and obvious reasons. I feel as if we might have been short changed.... but that's just me, not necessarly the views from other members of 234.

I'm not trying to start or continue an argument... I'm just stating my opinions, and the opinions of others. If somehow you find that offensive, well I'm sorry.. but there's not much I can do about that now... except to try to talk about this issue.. maybe come up with a new outlook or something.

DougHogg 18-03-2003 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by AnimeRaul234
I don't consider the object of a FIRST competition as winning it, but I would like to go and compete in a place where people play fair... don't you?
Personally I was hurt for various reasons... since 698 already stated that they disagree with this thread... and well I pretty much I assumed it at the competition for various and obvious reasons. I feel as if we might have been short changed.... but that's just me, not necessarly the views from other members of 234.

I'm not trying to start or continue an argument... I'm just stating my opinions, and the opinions of others. If somehow you find that offensive, well I'm sorry.. but there's not much I can do about that now... except to try to talk about this issue.. maybe come up with a new outlook or something.

Did your team enter into an agreement with Team 698 in this match?

Arizonal Regional
__Match 0043
Alliance Team Score QP
_ _Blue _ 698 _128 _322 _MICROCHIP/HHS
_ _Blue _ 606 _128 _322 _NASA/JPL/KingDrew LA
_ _Red _ 234 _ 97 _ 97 _Cyber Blue
_ _Red _ 812 _ 97 _ 97 _UCSD & PREUSS

Team 698 did stop making pre-match agreements after the petition was taken around. I think that we need to concentrate on getting agreement from the other teams on the petition, so we can make sure that we don't have a repeat of the situation at other competitions. There are too many hard feelings being generated. The fact is that the rules do not forbid talking to the opponents. Therefore we will have to get the rules changed or get the teams to agree not to do it.

We need to get this thread back to its original purpose.

Alexander McGee 18-03-2003 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by DougHogg
We need to get this thread back to its original purpose.
AMEN TO THAT!!!

Im glad that people take the time to, oh, i dont know....READ THE FIRST POST!

Ive been more than kind. Im just freakin out here. Come on people.

Ok, im better now.

Thank you once again

David Kelly 18-03-2003 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DougHogg
Did your team enter into an agreement with Team 698 in this match?

Arizonal Regional
__Match 0043
Alliance Team Score QP
_ _Blue _ 698 _128 _322 _MICROCHIP/HHS
_ _Blue _ 606 _128 _322 _NASA/JPL/KingDrew LA
_ _Red _ 234 _ 97 _ 97 _Cyber Blue
_ _Red _ 812 _ 97 _ 97 _UCSD & PREUSS

Team 698 did stop making pre-match agreements after the petition was taken around. I think that we need to concentrate on getting agreement from the other teams on the petition, so we can make sure that we don't have a repeat of the situation at other competitions. There are too many hard feelings being generated. The fact is that the rules do not forbid talking to the opponents. Therefore we will have to get the rules changed or get the teams to agree not to do it.

We need to get this thread back to its original purpose.


whether we ageed to participate in an agreement for that match should not matter. its over and we have moved on.

Brandon Martus 18-03-2003 18:41

I think the 3+ threads have accomplished enough discussion about this.

Let's put it on the back burner and bring it up in a week or so if there's more to be said.

Ken L said it best:
Quote:

Take a few steps back, spend a day or two reading what's been posted, organize your thoughts and think about it, and then figure out what's the best way to fix this problem. And I think locking some of the threads for a day or two will help folks think more clearly.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:24.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi